"John Goldfarb, Please Come Home" is one of those movies that Hollywood moguls of the time probably wished they hadn't made. The critics overall thought it was a dud, and the public agreed. It bombed at the box office and lost money for Fox. Yet, the book on which the film was based sold well and got sterling reviews for its humor. The film, though, is something else. What could and should have been a very good political satire, turned out to be a lot of expensive buffoonery with near zero humor.
Great comedy satires are built mostly on dialog with great screenplays. That's especially so with political satires. Think of examples, such as "Ninotchka" of 1939, "The Senator was Indiscreet" of 1947, "Our Man in Havana" of 1959, or "One, Two, Three" of 1961. Some also have hilarious antics that go hand-in-hand with witty and funny dialog. Examples of this type include "A Royal Scandal" of 1945, "The Mouse that Roared" of 1959, or "Dr. Strangelove" of 1964. And a few films of this narrower genre have mostly hilarious antics with very little funny dialog, but still with excellent screenplays. Examples of this small group are "Comrade X" of 1940 and "The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming" of 1966.
But what happened between the book and this film that is virtuously humorless, is a puzzle. Two things seem apparent. The writers wrote dialog, especially for the various U.S. government characters, that fails miserably to even evince a chuckle or a smile. There is absolutely no tongue-in-cheek. The actors just blurt out lines that say to the audience that this is supposed to be funny. The script is infantile, treating the audience as mindless or unable to understand any subtleties of language and humor. There is no subtly. There is no understatement. Nor overstatement. Where is the innuendo, or the conjecture? Where are the oxymorons, the malapropisms, spoonerisms or gaffes? There is none of that in this film script. The only language device used here is gibberish, mostly in Peter Ustinov's King Fawz. And to go with it, no funny antics but an almost continuous stream of buffoonery. And that clearly lacks the humor that is apparent in films of The Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, or the Marx Brothers. There again, though, those comics had screenplays in which their antics and buffoonery meshed for wonderful humor.
It's too bad with such a huge cast of prominent actors of the day, that 20th Century Fox couldn't make this into a very good comedy and political satire. Perhaps the reluctance of some prospective cast members to accept roles should have signaled the problems with the screenplay. Perhaps, too, the lack of any early backers in Hollywood was a sign of a problem with the plot. Then, after a book was written that got some good reviews for its comedy, it had a hard time getting made.
Another long-time writer, whose reviews are frequently helpful and that I follow and enjoy, probably hit the nail on the head as to how such a bad movie came about with a fistful of prominent actors. He notes actors who have made films they knew, or thought were bad, but they made them anyway for the pay. They needed or wanted the money. Well, the likes of Shirley MacLaine, Peter Ustinov, Richard Crenna, Wilfrid-Hyde-White, Jim Backus, Harry Morgan and Fred Clark got their money, but 20th Century Fox lost a lot of money on this dud.
My two stars are for the lavish sets and technology used to "prop" this film - its gizmos and gadgets. Most obvious are the king's go-cart which is made to look to be rocket-powered, and then the plethora of the elaborate electric trains.
Here are the only two lines from this film that I guess might get a chuckle from some people - not many, but some.
Secretary of State Deems Sarajevo, "It may be a disaster, Whitepaper, but it is not a mistake."
Jerry Ericson, "Nobody's ever called me as asp before."
Great comedy satires are built mostly on dialog with great screenplays. That's especially so with political satires. Think of examples, such as "Ninotchka" of 1939, "The Senator was Indiscreet" of 1947, "Our Man in Havana" of 1959, or "One, Two, Three" of 1961. Some also have hilarious antics that go hand-in-hand with witty and funny dialog. Examples of this type include "A Royal Scandal" of 1945, "The Mouse that Roared" of 1959, or "Dr. Strangelove" of 1964. And a few films of this narrower genre have mostly hilarious antics with very little funny dialog, but still with excellent screenplays. Examples of this small group are "Comrade X" of 1940 and "The Russians Are Coming, The Russians Are Coming" of 1966.
But what happened between the book and this film that is virtuously humorless, is a puzzle. Two things seem apparent. The writers wrote dialog, especially for the various U.S. government characters, that fails miserably to even evince a chuckle or a smile. There is absolutely no tongue-in-cheek. The actors just blurt out lines that say to the audience that this is supposed to be funny. The script is infantile, treating the audience as mindless or unable to understand any subtleties of language and humor. There is no subtly. There is no understatement. Nor overstatement. Where is the innuendo, or the conjecture? Where are the oxymorons, the malapropisms, spoonerisms or gaffes? There is none of that in this film script. The only language device used here is gibberish, mostly in Peter Ustinov's King Fawz. And to go with it, no funny antics but an almost continuous stream of buffoonery. And that clearly lacks the humor that is apparent in films of The Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, or the Marx Brothers. There again, though, those comics had screenplays in which their antics and buffoonery meshed for wonderful humor.
It's too bad with such a huge cast of prominent actors of the day, that 20th Century Fox couldn't make this into a very good comedy and political satire. Perhaps the reluctance of some prospective cast members to accept roles should have signaled the problems with the screenplay. Perhaps, too, the lack of any early backers in Hollywood was a sign of a problem with the plot. Then, after a book was written that got some good reviews for its comedy, it had a hard time getting made.
Another long-time writer, whose reviews are frequently helpful and that I follow and enjoy, probably hit the nail on the head as to how such a bad movie came about with a fistful of prominent actors. He notes actors who have made films they knew, or thought were bad, but they made them anyway for the pay. They needed or wanted the money. Well, the likes of Shirley MacLaine, Peter Ustinov, Richard Crenna, Wilfrid-Hyde-White, Jim Backus, Harry Morgan and Fred Clark got their money, but 20th Century Fox lost a lot of money on this dud.
My two stars are for the lavish sets and technology used to "prop" this film - its gizmos and gadgets. Most obvious are the king's go-cart which is made to look to be rocket-powered, and then the plethora of the elaborate electric trains.
Here are the only two lines from this film that I guess might get a chuckle from some people - not many, but some.
Secretary of State Deems Sarajevo, "It may be a disaster, Whitepaper, but it is not a mistake."
Jerry Ericson, "Nobody's ever called me as asp before."